I agree with you 100%, and have been saying the same thing for decades now... I have discovered that both democrats and republicans want the same thing... larger government and the power that goes with it at all costs. The only way to get this done, unfortunately, is with another political party....there are those that say we can overtake the republican party and right the listing ship... well, this election cycle is proving that this line of thinking is at best fantasy, at worst being complicit in the destruction of our way of life... If we need to take over another established party, the closest thing is the libertarian party.... the nut job libertarians are in the minority there ( much like conservatives are the minority in the republican party )..... I for one will no longer support those that wish to tear down the consitution, and my way of life.
Interesting, is it not, that these libs are as ugly on the outside as they are on the inside?
Unless, you’re rich enough to get an overhaul once a month. (Listing, Nancy B*tcchosi?)
To line their pockets at the expense of others.
I for one will no longer support those that wish to tear down the consitution, and my way of life. (joe fonebone)
Some of our present justices actually are of a mind to set the thought back to that declared by our Founding Fathers. But in order to do that, we have to go back more than 100 years. My thought is that our predicament was imposed on us by three Chief justices, all "progressive," and all appointed by Republican Presidents. They were:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. <-- (T. R. Roosevelt, 1902)
Charles Evans Hughes, Sr. <-- (Taft, 1910; Hoover, 1930)
Earl Warren <-- (Eisenhower, 1953)
Holmes espoused a form of moral skepticism and opposed the doctrine of natural law, marking a significant shift in American jurisprudence, from natural law to case law. (cribbed from Wiki)
Hughes carried Holmes' shift farther, perticularly by announcing firmly, "...the Constitution is what we say it is ..." -- thereby making the Supreme Court a tribunal -- a hotbed of activism, an atmosphere of essentially making the Constitution a lump of clay, rather than a rock of certainty.
Warren, of a very liberal background, was nominated by Ike to please liberals. The liberalizations under Warren are too numerous to count here, but included getting prayer out of schools and making abortion on demand lawful. Later on in Warren's appointment, Ike said that was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."
So, I think you will find Ginzburg would fit right in with those earlier Republican-chosen Justices. Thank God for Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia -- ones that may get honesty back into play. However, please note that there does not seem to be a seat in this group who for a Justice of the applied religious doctrine of our Founders. That phase of American history is gone. Don't be hoping that will ever come back. Also, you might want to be learning some Spanish. A little Yiddish wouldn't hurt either.